Pell Grants Response

Published on November 27, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

Since I cannot comment on another user's blog about cutting Pell Grant funding (seems I was pre-emptively blacklisted), I would like to offer an opposing point of view.

While I commend anyone who rises above the difficulties life has dealt them, giving credit to government programs diminishes that person's achievement. I, too, came from a low-income family. College was not an option for me unless I earned it. Instead of applying for a government grant, I strived from my very first day in school to keep my grades up. Eventually, upon graduating from High School, I had full academic scholarships to several universities. In both my case and the example of the person who utilized Pell Grants, it was our tenacity and achievements that enabled us to receive a college education.

Having said this, let me clear up the "cut in funding for Pell Grants." This is a mistatement. Funding was not cut for Pell Grants. Pell Grants will have no less money than last year. The increase in the annual funding was lowered. The funding will still increase, just at a lower rate than some wanted and expected. Please see the below chart:

The President's proposal increases funding for the Pell grant program by $800 million and sets aside $3.7 billion in mandatory budget authority to eliminate the Pell Grant shortfall. However, it will keep the maximum grant award at $4,050 for the third consecutive year.

And for the first time, recipients of Pell Grants will be allowed to receive up to three grants a year. In the past, applicants only qualified for one grant a year.

Fiscal restraint is the mantra repeated by both sides of the aisle, but no one will ever agree on "things we really need" vs. "things we just want." In the new FY05 budget, some people were upset with the cuts in the National Science Foundation.
Federal air traffic controllers produced a scathing ad against Bush for proposing to cut some of their funding. Other education advocates immediately jump on Pell Grants. What about the environment? Global warming is a huge issue for some people.

Beware congressional leaders, in the spirit of fiscal restraint, cut too much and suddenly legistlators are lableled selfish, heartless, self-serving Republicans taking checks from Seniors, lunches from school children, destroying our environment, and denying minorities and low-income Americans educational opportunities.

Comments (Page 1)

Danny Bassette

on Nov 27, 2004

This reminds me of something my math teacher once said, lets hope I don't misword it too badly. "There has been a decrease in the rate of change, but there is still an increase in the overall value. The increase decreased, but the total is still increasing." Just paraphrasing, but then again this is a comment to a comment

Pre-emptive blacklisting, what will they think of next

iamheather

on Nov 27, 2004

"There has been a decrease in the rate of change, but there is still an increase in the overall value. The increase decreased, but the total is still increasing." Just paraphrasing, but then again this is a comment to a comment Pre-emptive blacklisting, what will they think of next

Good paraphrasing and I think your teacher had the Cliff Notes' version of my article.

Danny Bassette

on Nov 27, 2004

Considering this was something like 6 years ago I doubt it

iamheather

on Nov 27, 2004

Considering this was something like 6 years ago I doubt it

Ok, well, I was trying to say that your teacher had a much more concise explanation of what I tried to convey in my article.

Texas Wahine

on Nov 27, 2004

heather: This topic is of particular interest to me as a portion of my education was paid for with Pell Grants (I had a combination of grants, scholarships, and loans).

While I do think that college assistance for worthy (meaning those with the drive and ability to obtain a degree) individuals is a good use of government money because it benefits society by expanding the ranks of educated professionals and is less expensive in the long run than welfare entitlements, I understand that the government cannot be all things to all people. Either some things will have to be limited (as in the case of Pell Grants) and some things will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised.

Fiscal responsibility is something that President Bush must work toward taking more seriously. I am personally not in favor of more tax cuts, but I am no economist (obviously) and so maybe the tax cuts are helpful. It doesn't seem wise in a time of war and insurmountable debt, but again, what do I know? Expenses need to be cut. That much is clear. Defense is one are where we certainly do not need to make cuts. I think there's a lot of wasteful spending out there that should be targeted first and foremost, and hopefully we will see the fat trimmed from the federal budget.

Thank you for taking the time to clear up the misunderstanding about the Pell Grant funding. There's quite a difference between what Dabe described as happening and what you have shown here to actually be the case. I will also agree with you that individuals who are determined enough will very likely be able to find a way to pay for their education, one way or another.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the assistance I received, and I hope that other deserving college hopefuls will be provided with the same opportunities I was.

Great article.

iamheather

on Nov 27, 2004

I do think that college assistance for worthy

And so do I. I hope my article didn't come across as unsupportive of Pell Grants.

Either some things will have to be limited (as in the case of Pell Grants) and some things will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised.

Yes, this is so true. And in either case, people will be unhappy.

Fiscal responsibility is something that President Bush must work toward taking more seriously

I agree 100%. He needs to utilize his veto power. However, the blame does not fall solely on the Bush administration as so many like to say. Our elected Congress men and women need to answer less to PACs and other special interest groups.

will also agree with you that individuals who are determined enough will very likely be able to find a way to pay for their education, one way or another.

Yes, as you so demonstated with your own abition and drive to achieve your goals.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the assistance I received, and I hope that other deserving college hopefuls will be provided with the same opportunities I was.

Absolutely! I have been on government assistance before in my life. I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit.

Great article

Thank you. That is a wonderful compliment coming from someone I so highly respect.

Texas Wahine

on Nov 27, 2004

heather:

And so do I. I hope my article didn't come across as unsupportive of Pell Grants.

I don't think so at all.

Yes, this is so true. And in either case, people will be unhappy.

Excellent point. Compromise is a dirty word in politics.

Another good point. I guess I was a bit surprised that President Bush has been so willing to accept all the spending that has come his way, but you are right. It doesn't originate with him.

I would not ever advocate annihilation of welfare and government grants for education, but there has to be a limit.

I agree, and it's really refreshing to come across conservatives who are sensible about this and are not interested in gutting those things entirely.

That is a wonderful compliment coming from someone I so highly respect.

Wow. I feel the very same way about that statement. What a powerful compliment. Thank you.

cactoblasta

on Nov 27, 2004

If your boss promises a $2.00 per hour raise each year, and then later on decides he can only afford that raise to be $1.00 this time around, he has NOT cut your salary....

In a simplistic sense that's true, but if inflation is at the point where that dollar extra per year fails to cover the effects then in real terms the employer has reduced your paycheck. He's just been very sneaky about doing it.

dabe

on Nov 27, 2004

First of all, heather, I never blacklisted you. I do not understand why you are not able to post comments to my blog. I'll look into this.

Secondly, I sure wish you could have posted this to my blog, as the information is interesting. Did you get the graph from a government site? I will also do a search on Pell Grant funding. Fact is, I really did respond to the New York Times article, and I did read it elsewhere, but I cannot remember where. Having said that, I do agree that fiscal responsibiltiy is imperative for this government to work well. However, cutting the Pell Grants will not make the difference at all. I am a major supporter of the grants, as they really did benefit me specifically, as well as many more. But, Pell Grants are not the total answer. They don't give you enough money to make it through school. They do, however, get your foot in the door. In addition to the Pell Grants, I worked, got student loans, and a needs scholarship.

Like LW, I also have arthritis, but nor rheumatoid. I have a close cousin of RA, called psoriatic spondyloarthropathy. I'm in a reasonable remission because of the new biologic drugs, of which I take Enbrel. But, I did not have this diagnosis when I went to school. I developed the pain in my hips when I was almost finished, and was diagnosed with RA at that time. Only recently did my diagnosis change to PSp.

In other words, my illness may have enabled me to get grants and government assistence, but not everyone is disabled. The Pell Grants enable those with financial disability, rather than physical disabilities, get a college education, even if it is only one tool in the toolbox. I do not agree that only disabled people should have federal assistence. Coming from LW, that sounds rather self-serving to me. Go figure.

Another argument - if you raise the grants by $2million, then reduce it by $1million, it should not be considered a cut. I offer a qualified disagreement. One must look into why the $2million was funded in the first place. Was the need there? Was it all spent? Or, was it reduced because it wasn't all spent? If it wasn't all spent, then you would have to wonder why not. Was it because there were not enough applicants? Or, because there were not enough administrators to make the grants? Were they not working? Why was the cut made. Yes, it is a cut, and yes, some cuts are good. But not when, on their face, and in the face of major corporate tax cuts, they'll ultimately hurt people. That's my point.

Kind of like how we're paying through the nose for gasoline these days, only reverse. Gas goes up to $2.10/gallon, when before the war it was maybe $1.50. That's a big hit to most people who have to drive to work every morning, not to mention the increases to heating oil, etc. Anyway, drop the cost of gas to $1.80, and now we're happy because it has been reduced? No. We're still pissed that we're paying $0.30/gallon more than before. It's really how you look at the "cut", and whether it is really a "cut".

Again, I'm sorry you were not able to post to my site. I'll get that fixed.

dabe

on Nov 27, 2004

Im a prime example of wasteful government spending as far as education goes. Having recently qualified for disability due to acute rheumatoid arthritis, i've qualified to earn a B/A..(and even a Masters) at an online college, all compliments of Uncle Sam via the Social Security Administrations "Ticket to Work" program. I'll take advantage of the program, simply because ive wanted to get a degree for quite some time now, but i'll ask you this....will a B/A in criminal justice (the field ive chosen) lessen my disability at all?

As you point out here, even though you consider yourself "a prime example of wasteful government spending", you're going to spend it anyway. In other words, it will help you get your foot into the door to get the degree you've always wanted. I don't understand why you'd consider that wasteful, unless you spend the money, then don't work afterwards, knowing full well that is what you're going to do. Maybe you really are a prime example of a deadbeat. I dunno. You said it, not me. Then, you go on to state:

i see no reason for Pell Grants to exist at all, if they make it easier to get regular student loans.

Whaaaaa? That's the whole point, which obviously eluded you. As I stated, Pell Grants are a foot in the door, and some people really do need the boost up. What's so wrong with that? Some people are truly not deadbeats, who think that they'll just take the money, spend it, then not give anything back.

Maybe you didn't specifically say that only disabled people should have federal assistence, but you sure as shit implied it.

dabe

on Nov 27, 2004

The following except from a Times article is a response to your article, heather, regarding what the increases/decreases actually mean to students. The article is posted here Link

"The grant amounts aren't growing because more people are seeking them. The number of students receiving Pell Grants has increased 37 percent in the last decade to more than 5 million, according to the College Board, which owns the SAT exam.

Meanwhile, Congress declined last weekend to block the Education Department from updating tax deduction tables used to calculate aid eligibility -- a move that angered Democrats and some higher education advocates.

If the Education Department updates the tables, it would cause about 1 million prospective Pell Grant recipients to have their eligibility reduced by an average of $300, according to Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of the Advisory Committee on Financial Assistance, which advises Congress. The update would save the Pell program about $300 million annually.

The impact would be felt largely by students from families earning between $35,000 and $40,000, Fitzgerald said. Poorer families don't generally benefit from the deductions, and more wealthy ones don't typically qualify for Pells.

About 84,000 students eligible for some award under the previous guidelines would get nothing, Fitzgerald said."

Moderateman

on Nov 27, 2004

Reply #8 By: little_whip - 11/27/2004 8:18:24 AM

i knew dabe was fullocrap ......... , gee truth spoken at last, the aforemention creature also blacklisted me {my first} yesssssssssssss lol a large thank you to iamheather for speaking {writeing} the truth about how the lunitics from the left twist anything to suit there purposes most learing from this last election that lies and misstatements spin doctoring can keep the masses guessing... Good cleaning up of more lies from the FAR lefties

dabe

on Nov 27, 2004

LW, my hatred of you is not blind.

I didn't mean to imply that life circumstances that prevent one from working, ie Texas Wahine's decision to stay home and raise her kids, is deadbeat. But, what you wrote is that you consider yourself to be a waste of government funding. Your words, not mine. You'd take the money, and not work. Instead, rather than saying, "I'm gonna fight this disease, go back to school on the government grant, get my degree, find a way to use it in a manner that maybe can accommodate my disability, great. If it turns out that I'm too disabled to work then, at least I tried." Hell, if you said something like that, I sure would have understood, and not fault you for wasting government money. The fact that you'd try is not a waste. But no. You call yourself a waste, then describe why. In fact, even though I initially read that you'd support grants for the physically disabled only, and I still believe that's what you stated, in fact now, what you seem to say is that all education grants should be disallowed, but if one is available to you, you'd spend it anyway.

No my disdain for you isn't blind. Your a freakin' hypocrite.

dabe

on Nov 27, 2004

Heather, if you could please post a comment on one of my blog articles, I'd be able to tell if you are still having problems. I checked, and you're definitely not on my blacklist. Thanks.

TaBooTenente

on Nov 27, 2004

I'm not sure about the persective, here.

I understand the arguments, just not the overall philosophy.

The philosophies working here seem to be "increase productivity" and "balance our spending".

Here's Texas: "Expenses need to be cut. That much is clear. Defense is one are where we certainly do not need to make cuts. I think there's a lot of wasteful spending out there that should be targeted first and foremost, and hopefully we will see the fat trimmed from the federal budget."

Here's Little_Whip : "Im a prime example of wasteful government spending as far as education goes. Having recently qualified for disability due to acute rheumatoid arthritis, i've qualified to earn a B/A..(and even a Masters) at an online college, all compliments of Uncle Sam via the Social Security Administrations "Ticket to Work" program. I'll take advantage of the program, simply because ive wanted to get a degree for quite some time now, but i'll ask you this....will a B/A in criminal justice (the field ive chosen) lessen my disability at all?"

Again, your arguments work. But the philosophy confuses me.

Here's the question that certainly won't be answered now: Why do we have government? The side issue being: What do we pay "them" to do, "them" being elected officials, but also tax-funded programs. I understand that some people feel less is more, and others feel only more is more. But what do you want with the money you spend? Obviously security ranks highly on many people's lists, and in this election, security relates to defense spending. But take "security" and "productivity" and put them together, and the philosophy works out in a way where in order to promote economic growth, money continues to be spent and fear (I hopefully won't enter the legitimate or conspiracy type of fear debate, here) leads to more spending and producing. You build defense deeply into the capitalist system this way.

Now look at education and productivity. Education has become a ridiculously huge business-- and the business isn't going too smoothly, in many cases. I'm not sure the death knell has sounded, like many alarmists, but just consider the concept, the way we just explored defense. We fund education in several ways, and private business particpates in many ways, too. We have become worried that the k-12 system is falling below standard so we attempt a financial checks and balances mode of encouragement. Like defense spending, the drive for productivity tends to create growth, but not quality. The current purpose of defense seems to be about productivity (yeesh, I can already anticpate the response to that one--can we at least agree that the system is expensive, and often increases the likelihood of future conflicts, for whatever reason?). The current purpose of education seems to be the same thing: productivity.

Little_Whip comments that the money spent on her education is a waste, because her course of study will not lessen her the dependence implied by her disability. . .

So?

How amoral we have become! How businesslike, how uninspired! Maybe because we feel ideologically assaulted from all sides that we instinctively dig trenches and bunker in. Everything is about the race for supremacy! Everything is about supremacy for the sake of personal safety, and when we mean safety, we mean safety for the people existing between our coasts. Do we really identify so much more deeply with Americans who live 2000 miles away from us, than Canadians who may live 1/4 that distance from our homes? What about the human ideals?

Education's purpose is education and nothing else. I'm not talking about times-tables or how to spell "subpoena". In my mind, education is about evolving, expanding, improving and unifying through diversity. Pigeonholing the new generation into the production line isn't going to help us grow. And it really won't make us safer, or do you disagree? I think the concept of productivity is important, but when a society places it on the pedestal with morality, or equates productivity with growth, we're going to have some serious problems, financially-speaking, and serious problems with safety, security, morality, and peace.

TBT

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!